And he had no reason to suspect that he did not comply. If Felker was not satisfied with the way in which the district attorney responded to his request, he should have so advised the district attorney and given him an opportunity to provide access to additional files. Cf. GMS Air Conditioning v. Dept. of Human Resources, 201 Ga. App. 136 ( 410 S.E.2d 341) (1991) (before filing suit, plaintiff complained by letter that DHR failed to provide the records it requested). 3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorney fees and expenses of litigation.

First, he must show that "though [Lombard] produced the documents [Wallace] requested after [the] lawsuit was filed," the appellees "violated the [ORA] by not producing them before the suit was filed." GMS Air Conditioning v. Dept. of Human Resources, 201 Ga. App. 136, 138-139 ( 410 SE2d 341) (1991). Second, if a violation of the ORA did in fact occur, Wallace must show that the appellees lacked "substantial justification" for the violation.

The factual issues presented by this counterclaim are whether the Authority violated the Open Records Act by not producing the documents the Stranges requested before they hired an attorney, and whether the violation, if any, lacked any merit as to law or fact. If the evidence is ambiguous or doubtful, the courts must give to the party opposing a motion for summary judgment the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences, and construe the evidence most favorably to the party opposing the motion. GMS Air Conditioning v. Dept. of Human Resources, 201 Ga. App. 136, 138-139 ( 410 SE2d 341) (1991). Because the Authority failed to show that these factual issues regarding the Stranges' Open Records Act claim must be decided in its favor as a matter of law, the trial court erred in granting it summary judgment on this claim.

Although the Manuels left Rowland alone, the evidence reflects that they did so after contacting Rowland's natural father and obtaining his agreement to "keep [an] eye out and check on" his son. Construing conflicting evidence in favor of appellees as the nonmovants, see generally GMS Air c. v. Dept. of Human Resources, 201 Ga. App. 136, 139 ( 410 S.E.2d 341) (1991), the only evidence regarding the Manuels' knowledge of any prior involvement of Rowland with alcohol consisted of an incident that, according to Jay Smith, Rowland's high school friend, occurred in the fall of 1988. Smith deposed that while Rowland was a passenger in Smith's car, the police stopped Smith and discovered the two underage boys had been drinking.